People of the Philippines vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 675

•         People of the Philippines vs. Pinlac, 165 SCRA 675

Nature:  The Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXLV (145) Makati, Metro Manila dated March 18, 1986 rendered jointly in its Criminal Case No. 10476 and Criminal Case No. 10477, is before Us on automatic review.

Keywords: Accused of robbery and robbery with homicide; tortured to confess the crime; signed confession without counsel and was not allowed to read what he was signing. — ACQUITTED.

Summary: The accused was convicted for two separate criminal cases for robbery and robbery with homicide. He assailed his conviction on the contention that the court erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession as evidence which was taken by force, violence, torture, and intimidation without having appraised of his constitutional rights and without the assistance of counsel.

PARAS, J.

Facts:

VERSION OF THE RTC:

Two Japanese nationals were neighbours in San Lorenzo Village, Makati. Mr Koji Sato, a mechanical engineer rented a house at No. 32 Arguilla Street. He was living alone but had a housemaid by the name of Irene Jandayan and a cook named Delia Marcelino who was at the time on a Maternity leave, due to deliver a child with her husband, Pinlac, who had frequently visited Mr. Sato’s place.

A low concrete separated the house rented by Sato from that rented by Mr. Saeki Osamu, whose house No. 32 in the same street.

On April 7, at around 5pm, Sato went out of his house. At around 6:45, Jandayan, the housemaid, also left the house to begin her day-off. She locked all the doors prior to leaving and returned to her employer’s residence the morning of the following Monday. At 11:30pm, Sato returned to his house and noticed that his doors were already unlocked. He discovered that a few of his things were missing after a thorough inspection of the house. They were never recovered.

Thereafter, Sato reported the robbery at the Makati Police Station and requested the police to investigate his residence. It was when the police investigators had already reached Sato’s residence that he learned about the death of Osamu, his neighbor.

Investigators then gathered evidence at the residence of Osamu and took pictures of the scene of the crime. The death weapon, the kitchen knife marked Exhibit "Q" was recovered from the living room of the house. This was later turned over to the PC crime laboratory for chemical examination.

Going around the house the investigators saw the slashed screen wall near the back door. Several footprints were found in the backyard; these correspond to the impressions of the soles of Pinlac's shoes, Osamu’s maid, Evelyn Salomea, was investigated. She revealed that she saw Pinlac enter the house of Sato at seven o'clock in the evening, although she did not see him leave thereafter; and that Jandayan has knowledge of the address of Marcelino. Her two statements were introduced in evidence.

Subsequently, the policemen went to Marcelino's residence in Taguig, and, finding Pinlac thereat, invited him to the police station. Detective Samson (who also took the witness stand) opined that the killer made his entry by removing the panels of jalousies at the rear of the house and that fingerprints were lifted from the victim's house. Policemen Mallari submitted his final report, regarding this incident.

The foregoing findings of fact are vigorously denied by the accused.

VERSION OF THE ACCUSED:

He never left the premises of his house; this fact was corroborated by defense witness Barcelino Heramis who noticed accused's presence in the premises as he and his children were then practicing their musical instrument that evening.

At about 2 pm, 3 policemen came to his house in Taguig and arrested the accused for robbing Mr. Sato and for killing Mr. Osamu, without any warrant of arrest shown to him despite his demand.

The officers then brought the accused to the scene of the crime and was ordered to reenact according to what the police theorised how the crime was committed. It was at this moment that the prints of the sole of accused's shoes were all over the premises of Osamu and Sato's houses.

During the investigation at the precinct, he was tortured and forced to admit the crimes charged; and as a result of that unbearable physical torture, his lips and mouth suffered cuts and cracks to bleed furiously; and that blood dripped into his clothings down to his shoes, thus explaining why there are blood stains in his shoes. Before and during the arrest, the police officers have never mentioned about the stain of blood in accused's shoes which they could have easily detected during the arrest. They got his shoes only after it were stained with blood oozing from accused's lips and mouth as a result of the injuries he sustained from the torturers.

It was on that evening of April 9,1986 at about 9:00 o'clock, when accused could no longer bear the torture starting from 2:00 P.M. for seven (7) solid hours when he ultimately succumbed to the wishes of his torturers and finally signed a prepared confession which he was not even allowed to read, nor explained to him. The police investigators did not even wait in the following morning for the accused to sign the same considering that said confession was subscribed only on the following day April 10, 1986 by a certain Assistant Fiscal.

Issue:  Whether or not due process was observed during the custodial investigation of the accused.

Held: No. The court find it meritorious to declare that the constitutional rights of the accused was violated in the failure of the authorities in making the accused understand the nature of the charges against him without appraising him of his constitutional right to have a counsel during custodial investigation. Moreover the prosecution merely presented the extrajudicial confession of the accused which is inadmissible as evidence and the other evidences provided therein are merely circumstantial and subject for rebuttal. The court acquitted the accused.

Ratio: The prosecution evidence leaves much to be desired. No direct evidence or testimony of any eyewitness was presented Identifying the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged. The only evidence furnished by the police authorities were merely circumstantial evidence regarding the fingerprints of the accused found in the window stabs of the maid's quarters and in the kitchen cabinet in the house of Mr. Sato. But this was satisfactorily explained by the accused to the effect that aside from being a frequent visitor in the house of Mr. Sato where his wife works as a cook wherein at those times he could have unknowingly left his fingerprints, but most especially during the time when he was arrested and ordered to reenact. In the process he held some of these window slabs, walls, furniture, etc., in accordance with the order of the arresting officer. The only evidence presented by the prosecution which could have been fatal, is the extra-judicial confession of the accused, which is now being assailed as violative of the Constitution.

At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, .... He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means by telephone if possible — or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory in whole or in part shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Going to the instant case, We find that the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove compliance with these constitutional rights. Furthermore, the accused was not assisted by counsel and his alleged waiver was made without the assistance of counsel. The record of the case is also replete with evidence which was not satisfactorily rebutted by the prosecution, that the accused was maltreated and tortured for seven (7) solid hours before he signed the prepared extra-judicial confession.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.